I'm sorry, SEIU... but how about we tear up all your union contracts after we tear up his compensation contracts? Heck, a contract is a contract, right?

I don't know how those guys sleep at night. I'm guess it's on piles of money, though.

Semantics, but it is SEIU, not the SEIU.

@TuxthePenguin: sounds good to me. as long as it's AFTER.

people wouldn't need unions if employers played fair. giving one man $100 million when you skirt employment laws so that front-line employees don't qualify for benefits is not playing fair.

I guess you can alienate stockholders, customers, and the government, as long as you make the right people at the top who control the pensions happy you will cash in big time. Or at least, that's the lesson until the feds give this guy the $52 million "BofA executives whose names end in "en Lewis" pension tax"

@TuxthePenguin: Except these people are contracted to succeed.

If you screwed up your job, despite having a CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT for your job, would you expect to walk away with a couple years salary after they fired you?

No?

Then why are we paying these guys what amounts to that, when they did the EXACT same thing?

@TuxthePenguin: Would you also like to roll back all the various workplace safety and time regulations that came in to being because of the union? Get rid of overtime, the five-day work week, etc.?

Unions are NOT the problem, stupid management that doesn't know how to run a company is the problem.

If your boss came to you and offered a generous package, do you say 'yes' or do you say 'gosh, boss, what happens when there is a change in the economy, etc.?" You say 'yes' because it is management's job to plan for the future, it is your job to do your work and get paid for it.

@tbax929 is back from the beach: Nah, his mattress is stuffed w/ the hopes and dreams of millions of people.

His piles of money are converted to gold (you were wondering why it's value was so high lately?) and stored in his McDuck style "money bin" off at the edge of town.

Maybe this is the kind of thing everyone across the political spectrum could get behind? These clowns plunge the economy into ruin, trash the retirement savings of those who can't replace it easily and then think they can make off with what is left.

I really could care less if Lewis is forced to live like everyone else. I am more worried about people who lost most of their retirement savings. Lewis likely wouldn't suffer much. He would just get some other immoral company to give him a job. Let him start over just like all those people who lost their 401k money.

@tbax929 is back from the beach: A matress in Scrooge's money bin.

@mac-phisto: Nope, if its not coterminous, no deal. If the union wants to start ripping up contracts, it should rip up its own.

Like it or not, payment packages (including benefits) are based on the relative scarcity of the skills you bring to your employer. In layman's terms, its much harder to replace a CPA working in Starbuck's corporate accounting office than it is to replace a Barista. As such, you want to make darned sure you keep your "scarce" employees - that's why benefits and pay grow as you get "higher" in the organization. Do they reach a tipping point of being obscene? Maybe, but that's a debate for another day. But I, as a business owner, will not pay someone more than they are worth to me.

I just find it ironic that the SEIU, a union, is complaining that a contract with ANYONE else is too rich.

Perhaps if Ken was THE ONLY person involved. But on a whole, even though he bought my company and eventually let me go, I think he did a good job with BofA. Also, if it's a pension, didn't he contribute into it/had a portion of his salary set aside?

Besides, does anyone know what the "fine" is for breaking his contract? IIRC, the canceling of the 50 million jet contract for Citigroup cost the tax payers over 5 million in penalties for breach of contract.

@SlappyFrog: Please reread the parent post, O Misser of Points.

@TuxthePenguin: yep running a bank into the ground ignoring your stockholders feelings on the purchase of a rival bank and being a major part of the destruction of the US economy is certainly a great skill.

You are a idiot and you continue to prove this by spouting off stupid statements about "benefit packages: when I dont know of ANY employer who pays those types of packages to rank and file employees that they fire for incompetence or negligence.

@SlappyFrog: Coming from the son of a pipefitter, I know that unions thirty years ago made great gains that we appreciate today. But don't throw overtime and the five-day workweek at me as some justification of why I should overpay my employees.

Funny, I thought America was a land of laws. Like it or not, the company made a contract with this man. Like it or not, neither were deceptive or fraudulent in the contract. Therefore, the contract has to stand.

To me, I'd argue the same with union contracts. If management is stupid enough to overpay their employees, they should be forced to agree to that contract until they get into renegotiations or in bankruptcy. Period. Its that simple.

@TuxthePenguin: It's pretty easy to replace a barely competent CEO. Hell, anyone Barista could expect at least an equal level of success at his position.

@Shadowman615: **any barista**

@Falcon5768: You mean the possible fact that they were bullied into that merger via the Fed? If you can prove that he was PERSONALLY negligent or incompetent, I will back you 100%. But there are far too many strange circumstances in the last two years to try and pin it on him. Heck, we don't even know if BoA NEEDED TARP. The government forced the big seven banks to take it, period.

"requesting that Lewis' pension be withheld until BofA, among other things, stops foreclosures, offers affordable loans to local governments, and lowers interest rates on credit cards"

Why? The guy had a contract, he fulfilled it. He deserves to get paid. Bank's are private businesses, they are allowed to make employment contracts, and banks have 0 obligation to do any of the above. If BoA didnt want to pay this, they should have written their contract differntly and have pay contingent on performance.

Im sick of people, most of which who made piss poor financial choices, getting pissed, when someone, with typically decades of experience, leaves an organization then expects the pay they were promised. They negotiated the contracts, and while they may not have done a great job, unless perfromance was a contingency, they need to be paid.

Dont be mad becasue you are in a bad place and somone else is making millions. Its not like these guys are winning lotterys, they worked years to get what they are, and if you were in there shoes you would take the money and leave to.

@Falcon5768: Two words: Barry Zito.

Why is it ok to pay guaranteed contracts to actors and sports stars, who provide little more than entertainment value, regardless of their successes or failures, but it's not ok to do so to businessmen who, on the whole generate jobs and economic growth for the country?

It's not "walk away with millions", it's tens or hundreds of millions of Dollars, and shouldn't the
"pay czar" come up with some creative fees to pare that number down a bit.

@TuxthePenguin:

Thank you Tux. This is the point everyone misses. Regardless of what you think about the job he did or about how badly a job he did. He had a valid binding contract with the corporation.

Frankly, I think he did a terrible job, and deserves squat. But, as mentioned, we're a nation of laws. Once you start tearing up a contract after the fact, we start going down a slippery slope. Especially given that the contract , by definition, was signed by both parties.

And as tux mentions, if the union wants this contract to be torn up, the same logic can allow the powers that be to tear up any of its contracts.

@llcooljabe: The problem is that contracts are torn up

EVERY FUCKING DAY!

Its called voiding, and its done when you fuck up so badly you VIOLATE your contract EXACTLY LIKE HE DID.

I'd love to see that his contract says he is entitled to the money even if Bank of America is a smoking hole when he leaves, and if it actually says he is then I would LOVE to see the guy who wrote that contract so he can hire me someplace.

@TuxthePenguin: Its ironic how strongly you're defending a multimillionaire from having his 'rights' taken away unfairly by the government, instead of lobbying to force the government to take its hands out of all the other dozens of illegal/immoral/unnecessary things that it does.

No but you're right, lets put all that other stuff aside and save a rich, white, multimillionaire.

@Falcon5768:
Wha?

Check out the stories about teachers that have been paid for over a year for doing nothing due to union rules.

Ask any government employee manager how easily they can fire their employees.

Unions allow for 'pay for poor performance' just as much as boards of directors do, and the price tags are just as high.

@Falcon5768: I'm sure his contract did have reasons that the entire thing could be thrown out. But I'm also quite sure he did not breach the contract... otherwise we would not be having this discussion.

This discussion is, at its base, whether we should throw out perfectly valid contracts because of the fact that they have gained "public disdain". That's its. Whether it is conservatives complaining about union contracts or liberals complaining about executive compensation... a valid contract MUST remain a valid contract, otherwise we get into a whole SLEW of problems.

@jheri curl juice: I think you are wrong. Since this is referring to an entity doing something, I believe "the" applies, and is used correctly. I mean, in the first line of the letter being sent, it says:

On behalf of the 2.1 million members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU)...

If they can't even use proper grammar when sending a letter to (the)Federal Government, should we take them seriously?

@tbax929 is back from the beach: to quote Rainier Wolfcastle:

"On top of a big pile of money with many beautiful ladies."

@Blueskylaw: Only what you're talking about is called "Bills of Attainder" which are specifically banned by the Constitution.

This guy has a legal contract, now fully executed. Sorry, you really don't want to walk down the path of changing the rules after the game (ex post facto, which is also banned). Because what happens if YOUR industry is the next affected?

Considering that unions are among the few public voices questioning Ken Lewis' lavish pension, one has to assume that those assailing unions - in a reflexive, drooling, Pavlovian fashion, 'natch - are in favor of these lush, undeserved rewards.
Unions are among the few voices out there that question such disparities, so if you're against unions, you're largely against working people and in favor of the ills that have stricken our economy recently.
Unless you think that Glenn Beck & Rush are on our side (in which case: Oh Boy...)

@Blueskylaw: Yeah, let's encourage an non-elected, unconstitutionally appointed "Czar" to levy illegal Bills of Attainder ([en.wikipedia.org]) sapping the pay because populist outrage says so!

THAT'S how a democracy works!

SEIU is rediculous. While the government shouldn't have given bailouts in the first place, a Union telling a private business by way of the government how to compensate their people is absurd. I believe in an America where companies compensation policies should be subject to shareholder scrutiny, not that of a labor union or the federal government.

@Radi0logy: Oh, don't get me started on how much our Federal, State and Local governments are involved in things that it shouldn't be... trust me, I'm with you probably more than you realize. But above all, I believe that everyone should be treated the same. If you're wanting to tear up a legally binding contract for a rich white multimillionaire, you'd better be just as ready yo tear up contracts with poor, homeless left-handed lesbians from Lithuania as well... otherwise you're a hypocrite.

@TuxthePenguin: *A* worker is expendable. *ALL* workers are not. Thus the rationale for creating unions. Management is certainly organized and speaks with one voice - why not working families too?
Oh. I guess they're not worthy since they don't have $125 million retirement packages. That makes perfect sense.

@Falcon5768:

Contracts are only voided, and then by courts, if something was done contrary to the rule of law.

If in fact the terms and conditions of the contract were violated, by definition of the contract and the terms contained therein, the contract is voided.

If, as Tux, mentions in response to you, he did violate the terms and conditions of the contract, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place, because he would have nothing.

The very voiding that you appeal to, is there because of the power of the legal contract. If we can tear up Ken Lay's contract, then by that logic we can tear up any sort of terms and conditions on any contract such that we will be able to do whatever we want and not be afraid of the consequences of a contract.

@Trai_Dep: Whoa... where the heck do you get that from? Before you talk about unions, examine the UAW and how its union contracts turned GM into a pension company that made cars. Or how union employees who were let go (wow, that was a miracle in itself) were complaining that they couldn't get the same pay elsewhere... oh right, they were overpaid.

We have far too much "but I should get that too!" in our society from people who are not COMPARABLE to those they are complaining about. I went to college, grad school, got my CPA and worked hard establishing my own practice. If you were to tell me that someone without my history and qualifications should get the same as I do, you're flatly insane.

If America would stop worrying about their neighbors and just worry about themselves... My grandfather told me so often when I was growing up "Do more than your paid to do and eventually you'll be paid more for what you do." Its really that simple.

I think people have forgotten reality in favor of their own opinion of what happened last year.

[www.theatlantic.com]

Yes, Lewis was responsible for a planned sale of Merrill Lynch to Bank of America. Then, once Lewis found out about how bad Merrill's situation was financially, he tried to back out of the contract, citing a "material adverse change" clause or MAC - that the situation had deteriorated to a point beyond what was initially disclosed, thus nullifying the contract.

So what happened next? Bernanke and Paulson forced Lewis to purchase Merrill Lynch anyway. Paulson and Bernanke threatened to "remove the board and management" if they used the MAC.

I'm not saying Ken Lewis didn't contribute to a losing quarter at BoA, the first in more than 15 years. I'm just saying blaming the guy for "driving the economy into the ground" or being "one of the chief architects of the ... economic crisis" might be a little harsh given the actual facts.

@TuxthePenguin: Your media diet has too much spun sugar and not enough meat & vegetables.
Only your last point was demonstrably, reputably true. And it had a good rationale. Your other points are paranoiac and unfounded.

@Trai_Dep:

You're missing hte point, Trai. Tux' points are not anti-union.

They're anti "making-up-rules-as-you-go-because-you-feel-like-it"

A contract is a contract is a contract. It is this simple.

@TuxthePenguin: It's not that simple anymore ever since the banks accepted billions in dollars from the Fed. Those are not private dollars anymore. That is $125 million in tax dollars....not dollars they earned by prospering from a private business.

@GitEmSteveDave_IsWaving: So, we saved $45 million in one shot? We need more "meddling" like that!

@Naame: Except we don't know if BoA needed that money. The government FORCED the major banks into taking the money.

In the end, a contract is a contract is a contract. If we want to invalidate contract law, then by all means proceed. But then don't complain when that credit card you have decides that you need to pay 24.99% interest, charges $1 for every charge and $100 for processing any payments. Because that's just another contract as well.

See what I mean?

@moore850: Ya know, that's unconstitutional. Its called a "Bill of Attainder". Yep, lets start tearing up contracts, destroy contract law... that's the way to go. Because he's "unpopular" right now. Oh yes, lets go with mob rule.

A contract is a contract is a contract.

@TuxthePenguin: They were given the opportunity by the Fed which stated to them that if they were not happy with the fact that they had federal dollars then they were welcome to give every cent of it back. They were not forced like they would like you to believe.

It wasn't about whether or not BoA "needed that money". It is the fact that they "chose" to keep that money. Contract or not...those are tax dollars and not private dollars. Also, you should know by this point in your life that there is absolutely nothing that is set in stone. There is a way to change anything and there are acceptable exceptions for everything. We'll see how it pans out in this case.

@Trai_Dep: I think it was more than that, when the deposit was factored in.

@TuxthePenguin: +1

It makes me uneasy to think if the government can do it to them they can just as easily do it to me.

I don't want to have to fill out a government form to get my next raise. I don't want the government getting into the business of deciding who gets paid what and when it's too much.

@Naame:

It doesn't matter, or shouldn't, that they got money from the government.

By that logic, any one who has a government contract should beware.

It's a terrible precedent to set if this is allowed. If it is, all contracts currently in effect can and should be torn into shreds and our economy would go to hell in a handbasket because no one would know what was binding and what not.

Government, industry, whatever should not be allowed to arbitrarily do whatever it wants. Instead, everyone should be subject to the laws. Chaos ensues otherwise.

@Jabberkaty: Is your retirement composed of tax dollars in the form of a federal bailout? Are you responsible for much of the suffering that is happening in America right now?

If not, then you and any other American like you doesn't need to worry one bit. Contract law is still stable and it will remain just as stable regardless of what happens to this guy because the fact is his case is extremely exceptional.

@Falcon5768:

I don't get it. I am in a union, if I screw up that badly I lose my job and don't have a compensation (golden parachute) pkg protecting me.

If some executive screws up, he gets to pocket damn near $125 million.

If he screws up shouldn't he lose like I would? Seems fair to me!

I guess based on this sites comments it should be fair the big guys screw up really badly they should still get to collect millions.

Man I need to figure out how to screw people and make more money! Obviously I am starting to learn that "hard work" means "jack S**T!"